Rajasthan HC orders Tehsildar to pay Rs 2 lakh personally for illegal detention despite suspension of sentence

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has directed a Tehsildar to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakh personally — not from State funds — for keeping a man living with HIV in illegal detention for approximately 53 days, notwithstanding a valid and operative order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, suspending the sentence of civil imprisonment. The Court has further ordered that the officer be immediately relieved of his field posting and barred from accessing the Tehsil office records pending a departmental inquiry.

A vacation bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal (per Justice Farjand Ali J.) observed that the conduct of Tehsildar Shri Tejpal Pareek was “not merely negligent” but “wilful, deliberate, and contumacious,” the officer having continued the detention for seven further days even after admitting in his own affidavit that he had acquired knowledge of the suspension order on 01.06.2026.

“When the State through the obstinacy of a single functionary subjects a sick, impoverished man to fifty-three days of illegal confinement while his ailing wife pleads in vain at the gates of officialdom, it betrays the foundational promise of the Constitution in the most egregious manner,” the bench observed.

The bench further held:

“From June 1, 2026 to June 8, 2026, a period of seven days elapsed. During this period, respondent No. 4 — armed with actual, admitted knowledge of the suspension order — continued to keep Shri Ghamandnath in illegal confinement. This continued detention, in the face of admitted knowledge, is not merely an administrative failure. It is a conscious, deliberate, and wilful deprivation of personal liberty in defiance of the order of a superior authority.”

Ghamandnath, a resident of Village Nayagaon, District Nagaur, and a person living with HIV requiring continuous medical treatment, was convicted by the Naib Tehsildar, Deh, vide order on March 5, 2026 under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for alleged encroachment on government land, and sentenced to three months’ civil imprisonment. An appeal before the District Collector was dismissed on April 9. In a further appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, the detenue filed an affidavit relinquishing possession of the disputed land, whereupon the Additional Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated April 15, suspended the sentence of civil imprisonment till June 12.

Despite this suspension order, Ghamandnath was not released. His wife, Bhanwari Devi — herself a cancer patient — personally appeared before the Tehsildar with a certified copy of the suspension order and repeatedly sought the release of her husband, to no avail. A habeas corpus petition was filed on May 14; a coordinate bench issued notice on May 15 in the presence of the Public Prosecutor; the Superintendent of Police was apprised and communicated the fact to the District Collector — yet the detention continued. The High Court finally ordered the detenue’s immediate release on June 8 and he was released that evening. In his own affidavit, the Tehsildar admitted acquiring knowledge of the suspension order on June 1.

The bench recorded that the illegality of the detention was established on multiple grounds: the ordinary presumption that an appellate order is communicated to the subordinate executing authority (omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta); the petitioner’s sworn deposition that she personally presented the certified copy; imputed constructive knowledge from the HC notice issued on May 15; and, most damningly, the Tehsildar’s own admitted actual knowledge from June 1.

The bench also noted the particular vulnerability of the family. The detenue’s HIV condition required continuous medical treatment of which the illegal detention deprived him, while his wife was simultaneously battling cancer. The bench described the Tehsildar’s conduct in this context as “nothing short of diabolical.” It remarked:

“The picture of this ailing woman — a cancer patient — presenting a suspension order at the gates of the Tehsil office, only to be turned away by an obdurate functionary; appearing before every authority; ultimately filing a habeas corpus petition as a last resort, only for the State machinery to continue its defiance even after notice was issued — is a picture that will, this Court hopes, endure as a reminder to every public functionary of what it means to betray the constitutional trust that the office of a public servant carries.”

The bench further observed that “the rule of law meets with its Waterloo when the State’s minions become law-breakers,” quoting V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., in Sunil Batra (2) v. State (UT of Delhi), (1980) 3 SCC 488, and applied the settled principle from Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 599, and Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, that a direction issued by a competent court or authority must be obeyed without reservation.

Applying the public law compensation jurisprudence inaugurated by Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, and developed through Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, and the Supreme Court’s recent award of Rs 11 lakh for 24 days of illegal detention in Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the bench awarded Rs 2 lakh as compensation. In a significant direction, the bench held that the entire amount shall be borne personally by Tejpal Pareek and that under no circumstances shall the State or any Government Department bear, reimburse, or facilitate payment on his behalf — the liability arising from wilful misconduct being “strictly and exclusively personal in nature.”

The petition was accordingly disposed of with the following directions: the detention of Ghamandnath after June 1 was declared illegal and violative of Article 21; the Tehsildar is directed to deposit Rs 2 lakh personally into the detenue’s bank account within 45 days; the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, is directed to initiate a departmental inquiry to be completed within 90 days covering the circumstances and extent of the Tehsildar’s knowledge of the suspension order; and pending inquiry, the Tehsildar stands immediately relieved of his field posting, barred from entering the Tehsil office, Deh, or any office within District Nagaur, and directed to be attached at Revenue Headquarters without any field or quasi-judicial role.

—

Title: Smt. Bhanwari Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 282/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:27065-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Jogendra Singh, Mr. Moti Singh

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Singh